Smt. N. Radhika

1

COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

IN THE

OF FIRST CLASS AT

PIDUGURALLA

Present: Smt. N.RADHIKA, MBA, LLB.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

PIDUGURALLA.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.16 of 2014

Between:

The State: Sub Inspector of Police,

Machavaram P.S., (CrNo.64/2013)

...Complainant

And

1.Ánangi Venkatramaiah, S/o. Singaraiah, Age 36 years, C/Yadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

2.Tulibilli Govindaiah, Slo. Naanaiah, Age 33 years, C/Yadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

3.Modadugu Venkata Krishna, Slo. Rammurthi, Age 34 years, C/Vysya,

Srirukminipuram \Village of Machavaram Mandal.

4.Battula Srinivasarao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age 40 years, CIYadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

5.Sakinala Anjaneyulu, Slo. Rangarao, Age 26 years, CYadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

6.Gurrapusala Nagaraju, Slo. Obaiah, Age 26 years, C/Yadava,

Pillutla Village of Machavaram Mandal.

7.Annapureddy Sneha, Dlo. Sivudu, Age 24 years, C/Reddy,

Chilakaluripet Town.

8.Kamarajugadda Lakshmi, W/o. Siva, Age 20 years, ClIKamsali,

Chilakaluripet Town.

9.Kurra Ramarao, S/o. Balaiah, Age 36 years, C/Yadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

10.Mattam Venkateswarlu, S/o. Rajarao, Age 28 years, C/Naidu,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal. (Died and abated) 11.Katteboyina Shekar, Slo. Sambaiah, Age 30 years, C/Yadava, Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

12.Katteboyina Sambaiah, S/o. Sambaiah, Age 60 years, CIYadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

13.Anagani Srinivasarao, Slo. Venkateswarlu, Age 25 years, C/Yadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

14.Munamala Guravaiah, Slo. Ramaiah, Age 45 years, C/Rajaka,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

15.Battula Veeraiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age 30 years, CYadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

16.Shaik Baji, S/o. Pedda Saida, Age 20 years, C/Muslim,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

17.Chintala Konda, S/o. Mallaiah, Age 20 years, C/Yadava,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

18. Varla Srinu, S/o. Pullaiah, Age 20 years, C/Madiga,

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

19.Dunna Mahesh, M/o.Venkayamma, Age 20 years, C/Madiga, Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal. 20.Desaboyina Koti @ Koteswararao, Slo. Srinu, Age 20 years, CYadava Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal.

2

21.Battula Venkateswarlu, Slo. Rammurthi, Age 25 years, C/Yadava,

2 8 . 4 . Srirukminipuram Vllage of Machavaram Mandal.

22.Tullibili Subbarao, Sio. Nagaiah, Age 45 years, CIYadava.

Srirukminipuram Village of Machavaram Mandal. dul

23.Dodla Narasimharao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age 30 years, C/Yadava,

Srirukminipuram Vllage of Machavaram Mandal

24. Yamarthi Kondalu, Slo. Kotaiah, Age 50 years, CYadava, Srirukminipuram vIllage of Machavaram Mandal

25.Nandyala Srimannarayana Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, Age 49

NSP Colony, Narasaraopet Town. years,

Accused.

This Calendar Case is coming on before me for final hearing on 16-07-2019 in the presence of the learned Asst., Public Prosecutor for the State and of

eP for the accused Nos. 1 t0 3, 3, 13 to 17 and 25, Sri K.Rami Reddy,

Sri B.Dasu,

Counsel for the accused Nos.b, 10, LL, 2, 18, 19, 21, 22. 23 and 24.

Don counsel for the aCcused NO.Z0, Sri K.Koteswara Rao, Counsel for the Sri K.Jala accused Nos.7 and 8 and having been neara and having stood over for consideration

till this day, the court delivered the following:

:JUDGMENT:

1. The Inspector of Police, Piduguralla iled Charge sheet against the accused 1 to 25 for the offences punishable U/secs. 353, 341, 294 r/w. 34 of IPC

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that:

On 27.4.2013 around 9.00 PM as per the instructions of SHO, Machavaram

Police Station L.WN.s 1 to 7 who are the police staff went to Shri Rukminipuram, Village to attend Bandho Basth duty for a Drama programme which was being performed, after obtaining permission from SDPO, Sattenapali. At the time of Bandho Busth, at Drama stage of the accused committing breach of contract of the permission given by SDPO,

Sattenapalli and they have performed obscene acts, songs and dances, on seeing the

Same L.W.1 questioned the acCUsed but all the accused gave evasive replies and did not need the words of L.W.s 1 to 7. Further. the accused 1 to 25 surrounded LW.s 1

O, Wrongtully confined and obstructed them trom performing legitimate duties and performed obscene acts, Songs and dances in their presence and quarreled with L.W.s 1 to 7. After reaching the police station L.W.1 gave a report which was registered by

LW.11 as a case in crime

No. 64/2013 U/sec. 353, 341, 294 r/w. Machavaram Police station on 28.4.2013 at 12.30 AM. L.W.11 took up investigation 34 of IPC on

and recorded the

statements of

L.W.s 1 to 10 U/sec. 161 Cr.P.c., visited the scene of

offence and prepared rough sketch.

LW.11 arrested the accused A1 to A8 on 3 28.4.2013 and A10. A20, A21 on 18.6.2013 and they were remanded to Judicial custody duly/ In this case A11, A12, A18, A19, A22, A23 and A24 are surrendered themselves

before the court on

before the Court on 24.5.2013. A9, A13. to A17 Surrendered

20.5.2013, A25 surrendered before the Hon'ble X Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

After Completion of investigation Gurazala wide CrlMP No. 2155/2013 on 11.12.2013. L.W.11 filed chargesheet against A1 to A25 for the offence U/secs. 353. 341, 294 r/w. 34 of IPC.

Cognizance was taken against accused 1 to 25 for the offence punishable 3. sections 353, 341, 294 rlw. 34 of IPC.

On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents relied upon by tne 4 prosecution are furnished to them u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

When examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C., the accused 1 to 25 denied the charge sheet 5 allegations, on consideration of the substance of the accusation U/ sections 353, 341, 294 r/w. 34 of IPC, read over and explain to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.s. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs

P1 to P5, After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 25 were examined 6. u/s. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material found against them. wbich tho accused denied to be true.

Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the record, the following points have 7. been formulated for determination: Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 25 for the offence punishable under sections 353, 341, 294 rlw. 34 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ? The testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 and the documents were Heard both sides. marked as Ex, P1 to P3 stands for scrutiny by this court.

s c e n e o 4 c o n L.W.1/Syed Ibrahim was examined as PW.1, He deposed that on 27.4.2013 p atter obtaining permission from SDPo, Sattenapali a drama was being perform in Shri

Rukminipuram, Village of Machavaram Mandal for which he along with L.W.s 2 to

atended Bandho Busth duty. He deposed that during the drama some of the accused Were performing obscene acts, songs and dances and try to restrain them from pertorming illegal activities. He stated that the accused A2, A5, A6, A9, A19 and some other accused whom. He do not remember at present due to lapse of time conhned LW.s 1 to 7 wrongfully and encouraged the other accused to perform obscene acts and Songs. He stated that thereafter, he gave a written report to LW.1 which was registered as a Crime and on the next day his statement Ulsec. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by L.W.11.

10. PW.1 stated that he went to the scene of offence on 27.4.2013 around 9.00 PM. He stated that he know th¡t the SHO, obtained permission from SDPO which was seen by him. He stated that he do not know whether entries were made in general diary in respect of Bandho Busth duty at the scene of offence. He stated that they went to the Scene of offence on bikes. PW.1 deposed that the accused obtained permission for playing a drama, but they were perfoming obscene acts and songs. He stated that no

photographs were obtained by him, while the accused were performing the obscene

songs and acts, as they had disconnected the electricity during their performance. He admitted the fact that the decorations of the stage reflected the settings of a drama. He stated that he did not know the particulars of the drama supposed to be played. He stated that he do not inform the VRO about the offence. He denied the suggestion that as there was no electrical power, he cannot identify the accused. He stated that he had seen the accused before the electric power was disConnected and stated the names of accused as Govindhu, Nagaraju, Anjaneyulu, Rama Rao, Mahesh. He denied the Suggestion that there was a mistake of identify of the accused in this case by PW.1, He denied the suggestion that the accused were performing in accordance with drama skit and they did not commit the alleged offence. He denied the suggestion that as the accused did n

11. PW.1 stated that there was no procession or feast on the date of offence but permission was taken only for the purpose of performing drama. He stated that along with him one Police Constable and 5 Home Guards were present on Bandho Busth duty at the scene of offence. He stated that the SHO did not issue passport or written

nstruction to attend the Bandho Busth duty, but the SHO handedover proceeding

ISSUed by SDPO, Sattenapalli which was said to be written by hËm to the SHO after returning from Bundho Bust duty. He stated that about 1000 to 1500 members were attending the drama at the scene of offence. He stated that by the timehe went to the 5 Scene of offence the drama had bequn and he do not know who removed the electricity do not the names and particulars of the Connection at that time. He stated that he persons performing the drama and that he stated the same in his statement U/sec. 161

Cr.P.C.

PW.2 deposed that at around 11.00 PM the accused started performing obscene 12. acts and songs against the permission given by SDPO, Sattenapali, on that L.VW.s 1 ato 7 who are on Bandho Busth duty went to the stage and were talking to A1 and A2 who are the committee members of the drama company. but the other accused did not let them talk to Al and A2 and continued performing obscene acts and songs. He Stated that along with A1 and A2, A4. A5. A6. A15. A22 A7 and A19 and some other açCused Who belongs to Sri Lakshmi Cine settings, surrounded them and wrongfully contine0 them till the completion of drama. He stated that after reaching police station the maller was reported to L.W.1.

P.W.2 deposed that SHO instructed them to attend the Bandho Bust duty at the

13. He further stated that he do not know whether there were any Scene of offence. proceedings by the SDPO, Sattenapalli to SHO, but he attended the duty as per the instructions of SHO, Mahcavaram. He stated that some of them went to the Scene of offence on bikes and others reached there in an auto. He admitted that L.W.s 1 to 7 did not go to the scene of offence in official vehicle. It was also admitted by him that there was n rivalry between the villagers or police and the accused. He stated that A1 ato A3 were the committee members of the drama company. He stated that he do not know personally about the applications submitted by committee members of the drama company before the SDPO, Sattenapalli seeking permission for the performance of drama. He stated that he do not know whether the SHO, Machavaram obtained bind over for the accused as a preventive action against the committing of any offence durina the performance of drama. He stated that he do not know the title or other details of the drama which was performed on the date of offence. It was admitted by PW 2 that drama was performed in a traditional manner and the actors perform their respective riots and all the villagers attended the drama including women. He denied the suggestion that they did not question the committee members In respect of the obscene acts and songs. He stated that by the time they went to the committee membere d started discussing about the performance of obscene acts and songs, all the ac Surrounded them and confined them wrongfully, as Such tney did not get an opportunih. to speak to the elders of the village. Admittedly he did not state before the Dolieo Le stated that he do not know the song which was played during the drama. corresponding names of the accused. He denied the suggestion that A1. A in the village on the date of offence and that they went to market yard, Guntur fo

offence that he denied

mirchi. He stated that the SHO was not present at the Scene of thea

P he suggestion that A7 and A8 did not wrongfully confined. He further denied the Suigestion that LW.s 1 to 7 denanded bribe from the accused and as their demands Were not satistied this case was talsely filed against the accused and that the alleged

ottence never took place.

14. PW.3/Shaik Abdulla, PW.4/Bathula krishna did not support the case of

prosecution as such they were declared hostile.

15, PW.5 stated that on the report aiven by L.W.1 a case was registered in Cr.NO. 64/2013 against Al to A25 for the offence U/sec. 353, 341, 294 r/w. 34 IPC and t0k up investigation. He recorded the statements of L.W.s 1 to 7 in the Police Station and the statements of L.W.s 8 to 10 at the scene of offence on 28.4.2013 and prepared rougn sketch ot the scene of offence, He stated that he arrested the accused on 28.4.2013 and A10, A20, A21 on 18.6.2013 and they were remanded to Judicial Custody, the remaining accused surrendered before the court. After the completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 to A22 for the offence U/sec.353, 341, 294 r/w. 34 of IPC..

16. During the crosS-examination, P.W.5 stated that he made an entry in general diary before duty was alleged to L.W.s 1 to 7 at the scene of offence. Admitedly 'Drama', is different from record dance, but he stated that the accused were playing obscene dance in the guise of drama. He stated that he can not specifically mention which accused acted obscenely. He admitted that no video graphs or photographs of the drama were collected by him during investigation. Admittedly he had not cited the resident of scene of offece vicinity as witnesses and he stated that none on them were available at the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion th¡t as A1 to A25 failed to give bribe demanded by the police, this case was falsely filed against them. He denied the suggestion that Rukminipuram bus stand is busy locality and that the accused were not arrested at the bus stand, as such he did not examine independent witnesses at the bus stand and for the same reason do not know the boundaries of the place where the

accused were arrested.

17 Tne oral testimonies of PW.s 1 and 2 clubbed with the material available on Tecora and the evidence of investigating officer goes to show that L.W.s 1 to 7 were on Danano Busth duty on 27.4.2013 in Shri Rukminipuram Village where a drama was being performed by Al to A25 with the permission of SDPO, Sattenapali. It was established from the prosecution evidence that A1 ato A25 disconnected the electricity during the performance of drama and started playing obscene acts and songs as L.W.s 1to 7 who are on Bandho Bust duty tried to restrain them from playing obscene acts, of he accused 1 to 25 Surrounded them by over powering them, wzangfully restrained - 9 0 - L Z them and caused obstruction to their legitimate duties. The oral evidence of PW.l and PW.2 who are the victims In this case and who are on Bandho Busth duty at the scene of offence emphatically stated the commission of offence by Al to A25 against them and this court do not find any sway in their evidence.

in State Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and another (2001) 1 SCC 18. 652, it has been observed: We feli that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be aP with initial distrust. We are aware that Such a potion was lavishly entertained dumig British period and policemen also knew about it. its hana over persisted during Pos independent yeas but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on ie a and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the Court cannot stat w

presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition oi a

presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have ueen Tegulariy pertormed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by tie legisiature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain aruclt was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused tt is Ope Io the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise showWt tO be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross examinat1on of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the Court has any g00d reasSon to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the Court could certainiy take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recOvery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason th¡t police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions", it is abundantly clear from the above said judgment that there is no rule of law 19. which enjoins upon the Court not to rely upon the testimony of the police officials in the absence of any independent/public witness. The only concern is to be more cautious and circumspect before placing any reliance on their testimonies. In other words. their testimony is to be subjected to careful scrutinization and assessment as compared tn the testimony of any other public person. On the touchstone of these principles, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case, there is no ground to disbelieve thp testimonies of all the police perSonnels who were present at the scene of offence A the police personnels have remained embedded in their testirmony in materia!

particulars.

8 9 , A 1 Hence. this court holds that the prosecution established the guilty of the accused th 20. for the offence punishable U/sec.353, 341, 294 rw. 34 of IPC. Beyond reasonable doubt i as such the AccUsed Nos.1 to 9, Al1 to 25 are reliable to be convicted for the said offences.

In the result Accused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 are found quilty for the offence 21. U/sec.353, 341, 294 r/w. 34 of IPC. As such they are convicted for the said offences

U/sec. 255 (2) Cr.P.C.

The application of probation of offenders Act. 22. In this case the convicts Accused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 were performing obscene acts in the quise of drama in violation of the terms of permission obtain from SDP0, Such obscene acts performed in public and created an unhealthy

Sattenapali.

atmosphere in the village and even the youth will get effected by watching such acts. Accused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 were unconcerned of the ramifications of their acts on the society and they went ahead performing obscene acts. Around thousand villagers which includes the youth from the village attended the drama. The offence commited by Accused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 was not one that was done in a fit of rage, but it was something done without minding the repercussions of their acts upon the audience, which is one of the reason for provoking the youth for committing offence against Women, as such this COurt is of the opinion that A1 ato A25 are not entitled for the application of beneficial provisions of the probation of Offenders Act.

Hearinq on sentence: The convicts Accused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 submitted 23. that they are poor persons who earn meager income by performing dramas for the livelihood of themselves as well as their family members. The convicts submitted that they are the sole bread winners of their families. Considering in the circumstances of this case as the offence committed by Accused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 are not of grrevous in nature, as ACcused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 are not involved in any other cases and manifestly as A1 to A25 are facing protracted trial since 2014 and even during this 5-6 years period no similar offence was registered/reported against A1 to A25 which shows that they are not habitual Offenders, this court is inclined to take a lenient view infavour of the convicts A1 to A25.

L4. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 25 are found guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 294, 353 and 341 of IPC and they are convicted U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C., ACCUSed Nos.1 to 9. A11 to 25 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each (Five Haiared only) for the offence punishable Ulsec.294 of IPC, in defauit of payment of fine t0 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (Two) Months. The Accused Nos.1 to

oi

the

accused

9, A11 to 25 are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each (Eive hundred only) for the offence punishable U/sec.353 of IPC., in default of payment of fine to undergo simple AcCused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 are

imprisonment for a period of 2 (Two) Months. The

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-each (TWo hundred only) for the offence punishable U/sec.341 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple imprisonment for a The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 are to

period of2 (Two) Months.

unti the period of expiry of appeal time. NO property as to order. be kept in force Office is directed to furnish true Copy of Judgment to accused persons forthwith. Accused Nos.1 to 9, A11 to 25 are apprised of their right of appeal on the Judgment of this colrt. my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open COurt on Typed by me on this the 23*d day of July, 2019.

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

PIDUGURALLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

Syed lbrahim |PW.1 K.Rajesh Kumar, Police Constable. PW.2 SK.Abdulla PW.3 Bathula Krishna |PW.4 Shaik Maahammad Shfee, SI of Police |PW.5

For Defence : Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: |Report of P.W.1 Ex.P1 |161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.3 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.4 Ex.P3 FIR Ex.P4 Rough Sketch Ex.P5 For Defence:

Ni.

JFCM, PDRL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

GURAZALA.

PRESENT : Smt. N.Radhika,

Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla, FAC.Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2020.

D.V.C. No. 21/2017

Between:-

Rachuri Hymavathi, w/o.Srinivasa Rao, D/o.Ch.Sivaramaiah, Hindu, aged 32 years, House wife, R/O.Manchikallu village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

… Aggrieved person. And.

1. Rachuri Srinivasa Rao, s/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 35 years, employee.

2. Rachuri Venkateswarlu, s/o.not known, Hindu, aged 55 years,

3. R.Bhavani, C/o.Rachuri Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years.

All are R/O.8-2-103/6, plot No.16, Sakthi Nagar, Near Chintalakunta, Check post, L.B.Nagar, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

…Respondents.

This case coming on 02-3-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Ch.Sarath Babu, learned Advocate for the petitioner and of Smt. G.Annamma, learned Advocate for the Respondents, and the Respondents 1 to 3 having been called absent and remained exparte, and after perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a Domestic Incident Report filed by the Protection

Officer concerned on behalf of the aggrieved person/victim/Rachuri

Hymavathi against the respondents 1 to 3, alleging that the aggrieved person submitted a report before the Protection Officer that she is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1 and their marriage was performed on 9.5.1996 at her parents house and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- as well as other lanchanams as dowry besides incurring marriage expenses of about Rs.50,000/-. At the time

2

of marriage, she was just 14 yeas and the respondent’s age was 17 years. Immediately after the marriage, she was joined with the R1 to lead marital life and she blessed with a male child in the year 1997 namely Manikya Rao. Subsequently R1 developed dislike towards her and he always used to demand her to bring Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and also threatened if she does not bring such amount, he will see her end and harassed her both physically and mentally. From the date of marriage and till 2006, R1 did not get any job. Moreover, R2 is having two wives and he along with his two wives and brother of R1 are all living in one house as joint family. As her husband R1 did not get any job for about 10 years, her parents send money number of times for the maintenance of their joint family and yearly send rice bags for their food etc., as per the demand of R1 and R2. But the respondent not satisfied with the same and harassed her and her parents to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. But her father refused to give the same and hence

R1 and R2 necked her out and her son from their house and having had no option, she reached her parents house at Manchikallu and residing there with them.

(ii) It is further submitted that several mediations held on her behalf for marital life, but the respondents 1 and 2 did not allow her into their house. While matter is going on, in the year 2006, R1 got Railway job also, the R1 and R2 did not allow her into their house. The R1 developed illegal intimacy with R3 and both are living in the same house along with R2 as husband and wife. She came to know the illegal contact of R1 and R3 and held mediation through elders for marital life.

But R1 and R2 openly declared that the dowry given by her is not sufficient to them and hence they take more money than her from R3 and permitted her to live with R1 as his wife and demanded her to sign

3

on empty papers for divorce with R1. But she refused to sign. Later, with the instigation of R2, R1 got filed HMOP.118/2008 on the file of Hon’ble

Family court at R.R. District against her for divorce, but the same was dismissed on merits on 24-01-2012. She also filed HMOP on 27-1-2011 against R1 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was decreed in her favour on 27-1-2011. But R1 did not allow her for marital life. As she herself and her minor son are having no financial support and starving for food etc., in her parents house and hence, she filed MC.30/2007 on the file of II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala and the same was allowed and the

Hon’ble court was directed the R1 to pay monthly maintenance to her

and her son.

(iii) It is further alleged that moreover, R1 is trying to add the name of R3 as his wife in the family members details and application of

Identity-cum-Medical Card of Railway department by suppressing the marriage with her and about her son.

(iv) It is further submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 trying to harm and cause injuries to her and threatened her by using criminal force, insisting to divorce from her. In this regard every woman in a domestic relation shall have no right to reside and to be in peaceful possession over the properties of the respondents shall not be evicted or excluded from right of her share except in according to the procedure established by law. Thus the respondents 1 to 3 committed an offence u/s.17 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Due to high handed activities and the acts of the respondents, she mentally tortured and depressed and suffering with ill health. The aggrieved person has no movable and immovable properties in her name. She herself and her

4

son purely depending upon her parents. The respondent No.1 is well off who earns Rs.70,000/-p.a. towards monthly salary and is having sufficient means he willfully neglected her for marital life as well as for providing maintenance. The Protection Officer further sought the following reliefs:

1) To grant Protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and to prohibit the respondents 1 to 3 for committing any act of domestic violence against her U/S.18 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act.

2) To direct the respondent No.1 to secure same as well as alternative accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the aggrieved person U/S.19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

3) To direct the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to the aggrieved person from the date of filing of this petition U/s.20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act.

4) To direct the respondents for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the aggrieved person towards compensation for damages of injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondents.

2.On the other hand, the 1st respondent filed counter. The allegations of petitioner were denied by the respondent No.1 in his counter. The contentions as per the counter of respondent No.1 are that the respondents and aggrieved person are close relatives and the marriage between the aggrieved person and respondent took place on 6.5.1996 as per Hindu Rites and customs in the respondent’s house at

Shakti Nagar, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District, without taking any dowry. At the

5

time of marriage, the 1st respondent was aged about 17 years by the time he had just completed 10th class, the petitioner was aged about nearly 14 years at the time of marriage. Thereafter, the aggrieved person never stood in the conjugal society continuously, she used to come and go now and then that to when the elders interfered the aggrieved person and her parents thought that the respondent is not a suitable in-law to them, as such they never cared him always tried to avoid him, as a result of conjugal life, the aggrieved person gave birth to a male child in the month of November, 1997, after birth of the male child relation ship stopped completely, the respondent is not allowed to see his son due to interfere of the elders, the matter was settled.

Subsequently, settled and declared by the parents of the aggrieved person with written document, dt.23-4-1998, both parties and both side elders honoured settlement document and the parents are leading their personal life without any relation ship since 1998, the aggrieved person voluntarily refused to lead marital life with the respondent and voluntarily deserted the respondent.

(ii) It is further submitted that since the settlement of divorce, dt.23-4-1998, there is no relation ship between the parties, there is no conjugal life, as such, the settlement took place at the presence of her parents and deserted the respondent. Subsequently after the desertion of the both parties, the aggrieved person filed MC.30/2007 after more than 9 yeas and the same was allowed and the 1st respondent paying maintenance amount regularly, after that the aggrieved person filed this false case against the respondent with false allegations.

(iii) It is further submitted that the aggrieved person filed a criminal case in the Rentachintala Police station vide Cr.No.82/2017, the

6

aggrieved person deserted the 1st respondent for long and long years back i.e. more than 20 years, hence this case is not maintainable according to law.

(iv) It is further submittedthat the respondent is physically handicapped person, the aggrieved person came to know that she willfully filed false case against the respondents, the aggrieved person voluntarily deserted the 1st respondent without any reasonable cause.

As such, the aggrieved person intentionally harassed the respondents 1 to 3 and the 1st respondent already provides maintenance to the petitioners till today, the 2nd petitioner already obtained majority, therefore, he is not entitled to require maintenance from the respondents.

(v)It is further submittedthat the aggrieved person has got sufficient means, but intentionally filed this case only to harass the respondents. The aggrieved person never harassed any point of time and domestic violence by the respondents. Therefore, the aggrieved person is not entitled to seek reliefs which were recommended by the protection officer in her report. With theses submissions, the respondent

No.1 prayed to dismiss the petition.

3. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not file their counter nor they filed adoption memo for adopting the counter of R.1. Hence, the respondents 2 and 3 are remained exparte. Eventhough, R1 filed counter, he did not represent the case on behalf of himself. Hence, the respondent No.1 also set exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, the aggrieved person herself got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

7

5.Heard the counsel for petitioner. There is no representation from the side of respondents, and they were set exparte, as such the arguments of respondents is considered as heard.

6.The point for consideration is:

1. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for Protection

Order as prayed for?

2. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for seeking

Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent or shelter in shared household or alternate accommodation U/S.19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as prayed for ?

3. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- p.m. as prayed for?

4. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for grant of

Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation as prayed for?

7.POINT NO.1:

Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for

Protection Order as prayed for?

As per the own report of the aggrieved person, she herself left the matrimonial home due to harassment of the respondents. As per the counter of respondent No.1, as there is no relation ship between the aggrieved person and Respondent No.1, since 1998. The aggrieved person voluntarily refused to lead marital life with the respondent and voluntarily deserted the respondent No.1. The aggrieved person also filed a criminal case against the respondents in the Rentachintala Police station vide Cr.No.82/2017 after desertion of respondent No.1 for long and long years back for more than 20 years. The simple report of aggrieved person is that as the respondents caused harassment, the

8

aggrieved person left the matrimonial home. Thus, there are no sufficient instances to believe that the aggrieved person underwent physical harassment at the hands of respondents. The simple saying of causing harassment by the respondents to the petitioner alone is not sufficient it shall be substantiated with sufficient ocular evidence. More over, as per the report of aggrieved person the aggrieved person herself left the matrimonial home without the consent of respondent No.1.

Thus, this court does not see any material that the aggrieved person is having threat of life or limbs at the hands of respondents. Therefore, it is not required to give any kind of protection order in favour of aggrieved person. Hence, this point is answered against the aggrieved person.

8.Point No.2:- Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for

seeking Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent or shelter in shared

household or alternate accommodation U/S.19 of Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act as prayed for ?

The aggrieved person has prayed to direct the Respondent No.1 to provide residence order or rent for alternative accommodation. She has been contending that since the aggrieved person is residing with her child in the house of her parents at Manchikallu village and as the respondents are living in the shared house hold at L.B.Nagar,

Sarrornagar, Rangareddy District. The 1st respondent is well off who earns Rs.70,000/- per annum, the 1st respondent did not choose to allow her and her child into his house. This shows that the respondents have committed domestic violence on PW.1 by refusing to accommodate her.

In such circumstances, PW1 is entitled for alternate accommodation directing R1 to provide alternative accommodation facility to her for

Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of this order. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9

9. POINT NO.3: Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- p.m. as prayed for?

It is already stated supra, on the instigation of R2, R1 got filed

HMOP.118/2008 on the file of Hon’ble Family court at R.R.District against

her for divorce, but the same was dismissed on merits on 24-01-2012.

The aggrieved person also filed HMOP on 27-1-2011 against R1 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was decreed in her favour on 27-1-2011, but R1 did not allow her for marital life. As she herself and her son are having no financial support and starving for food etc., in her parents house. Thus she filed MC.30/2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Gurazala and the same was allowed,but the respondent

No.1 did not pay single pie till today. No sufficient material is elicited that the respondent paid the maintenance to the aggrieved person.

The aggrieved person in her chief evidence stated that the respondent

No.1 is well off and he earns Rs.70,000/- p.a. towards salary and is having sufficient means, he himself neglected her for marital life as well as for providing maintenance. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 is having sufficient means in-order to provide maintenance to the aggrieved person and the child of the aggrieved person. The respondent No.1 is also having liability to maintain the aggrieved person and the child of the aggrieved person. No sufficient material is elicited that the aggrieved person herself voluntarily discarded the respondent No.1 and went to her parents house along with her child.

10. On the other hand, the aggrieved person failed to substantiate with the material to hold that the respondents 1 and 2 are having

10

movable and immovable properties and thereby they are getting good income. The aggrieved person sought Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance of her and her son. As per the material, there is no income source to the aggrieved person to maintain herself along with her son.

Thus, the respondent No.1 being husband is liable to provide maintenance to the aggrieved person. As the aggrieved person is leading miserable life along with her child and inview of the present cost of living, this Court is of the opinion that it is relevant to grant

Rs.10,000/- per month to the aggrieved person towards monthly maintenance and which is also justifiable. Thus, the respondent No.1 is under the obligation to pay Rs.10,000/- cash to the aggrieved person from the date of this order. Hence, the point is answered infavour of the aggrieved person and against the respondents.

11.POINT NO.4: Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for grant of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation as prayed for?

The aggrieved person sought Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that though the aggrieved person is residing along with her son in her parents house is discharging his bounded duties by providing shelter, care and protection to his son and his wife. Thus, there is no alternative way except to satisfy the aggrieved person with sufficient compensation.

Since the respondent No.1 is drawing net salary of Rs.70,000/- p.a. It is relevant to grant Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation to the aggrieved person.Hence, the respondent No.1 is under obligation to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the aggrieved person towards compensation which shall be paid within two months from the date of this order.

Thus, the point is answered in favour of the aggrieved person.

11

12.In the result, the petition is partly allowed by granting the following reliefs:

1) That the Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner towards rent or alternate accommodation from the date of this order.

2) That the Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the aggrieved person towards her maintenance from the date of this order payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month commencing from April, 2020; and

3) That the Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation to the aggrieved person for mental harassment and emotional distress caused to the aggrieved person by the respondents within Two months from the date of this order.

The petition for the rest of reliefs as prayed in the petition is hereby dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of March,

2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA,

FAC.ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Rachuri Hymavathi. -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: True copy of Decree in HMOP.No.46/2008 on the file Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Gurazala filed by the aggrieved person.

12

Ex.P2: Dismissed Order copy of O.P.No.118/2008 on the file of Family Court, Rangareddy District, which relates to Respondent.

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA,

FAC.ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

GURAZALA.

PRESENT : Smt. N.Radhika,

Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla, FAC.Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Monday, this the 16th day of March, 2020.

D.V.C. No. 21/2017

Between:-

Rachuri Hymavathi, w/o.Srinivasa Rao, D/o.Ch.Sivaramaiah, Hindu, aged 32 years, House wife, R/O.Manchikallu village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

… Aggrieved person. And.

1. Rachuri Srinivasa Rao, s/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 35 years, employee.

2. Rachuri Venkateswarlu, s/o.not known, Hindu, aged 55 years,

3. R.Bhavani, C/o.Rachuri Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 30 years.

All are R/O.8-2-103/6, plot No.16, Sakthi Nagar, Near Chintalakunta, Check post, L.B.Nagar, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

…Respondents.

This case coming on 02-3-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Ch.Sarath Babu, learned Advocate for the petitioner and of Smt. G.Annamma, learned Advocate for the Respondents, and the Respondents 1 to 3 having been called absent and remained exparte, and after perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a Domestic Incident Report filed by the Protection

Officer concerned on behalf of the aggrieved person/victim/Rachuri

Hymavathi against the respondents 1 to 3, alleging that the aggrieved person submitted a report before the Protection Officer that she is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1 and their marriage was performed on 9.5.1996 at her parents house and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- as well as other lanchanams as dowry besides incurring marriage expenses of about Rs.50,000/-. At the time

2

of marriage, she was just 14 yeas and the respondent’s age was 17 years. Immediately after the marriage, she was joined with the R1 to lead marital life and she blessed with a male child in the year 1997 namely Manikya Rao. Subsequently R1 developed dislike towards her and he always used to demand her to bring Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and also threatened if she does not bring such amount, he will see her end and harassed her both physically and mentally. From the date of marriage and till 2006, R1 did not get any job. Moreover, R2 is having two wives and he along with his two wives and brother of R1 are all living in one house as joint family. As her husband R1 did not get any job for about 10 years, her parents send money number of times for the maintenance of their joint family and yearly send rice bags for their food etc., as per the demand of R1 and R2. But the respondent not satisfied with the same and harassed her and her parents to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. But her father refused to give the same and hence

R1 and R2 necked her out and her son from their house and having had no option, she reached her parents house at Manchikallu and residing there with them.

(ii) It is further submitted that several mediations held on her behalf for marital life, but the respondents 1 and 2 did not allow her into their house. While matter is going on, in the year 2006, R1 got Railway job also, the R1 and R2 did not allow her into their house. The R1 developed illegal intimacy with R3 and both are living in the same house along with R2 as husband and wife. She came to know the illegal contact of R1 and R3 and held mediation through elders for marital life.

But R1 and R2 openly declared that the dowry given by her is not sufficient to them and hence they take more money than her from R3 and permitted her to live with R1 as his wife and demanded her to sign

3

on empty papers for divorce with R1. But she refused to sign. Later, with the instigation of R2, R1 got filed HMOP.118/2008 on the file of Hon’ble

Family court at R.R. District against her for divorce, but the same was dismissed on merits on 24-01-2012. She also filed HMOP on 27-1-2011 against R1 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was decreed in her favour on 27-1-2011. But R1 did not allow her for marital life. As she herself and her minor son are having no financial support and starving for food etc., in her parents house and hence, she filed MC.30/2007 on the file of II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala and the same was allowed and the

Hon’ble court was directed the R1 to pay monthly maintenance to her

and her son.

(iii) It is further alleged that moreover, R1 is trying to add the name of R3 as his wife in the family members details and application of

Identity-cum-Medical Card of Railway department by suppressing the marriage with her and about her son.

(iv) It is further submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 trying to harm and cause injuries to her and threatened her by using criminal force, insisting to divorce from her. In this regard every woman in a domestic relation shall have no right to reside and to be in peaceful possession over the properties of the respondents shall not be evicted or excluded from right of her share except in according to the procedure established by law. Thus the respondents 1 to 3 committed an offence u/s.17 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Due to high handed activities and the acts of the respondents, she mentally tortured and depressed and suffering with ill health. The aggrieved person has no movable and immovable properties in her name. She herself and her

4

son purely depending upon her parents. The respondent No.1 is well off who earns Rs.70,000/-p.a. towards monthly salary and is having sufficient means he willfully neglected her for marital life as well as for providing maintenance. The Protection Officer further sought the following reliefs:

1) To grant Protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and to prohibit the respondents 1 to 3 for committing any act of domestic violence against her U/S.18 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act.

2) To direct the respondent No.1 to secure same as well as alternative accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the aggrieved person U/S.19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

3) To direct the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to the aggrieved person from the date of filing of this petition U/s.20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act.

4) To direct the respondents for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- to the aggrieved person towards compensation for damages of injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondents.

2.On the other hand, the 1st respondent filed counter. The allegations of petitioner were denied by the respondent No.1 in his counter. The contentions as per the counter of respondent No.1 are that the respondents and aggrieved person are close relatives and the marriage between the aggrieved person and respondent took place on 6.5.1996 as per Hindu Rites and customs in the respondent’s house at

Shakti Nagar, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District, without taking any dowry. At the

5

time of marriage, the 1st respondent was aged about 17 years by the time he had just completed 10th class, the petitioner was aged about nearly 14 years at the time of marriage. Thereafter, the aggrieved person never stood in the conjugal society continuously, she used to come and go now and then that to when the elders interfered the aggrieved person and her parents thought that the respondent is not a suitable in-law to them, as such they never cared him always tried to avoid him, as a result of conjugal life, the aggrieved person gave birth to a male child in the month of November, 1997, after birth of the male child relation ship stopped completely, the respondent is not allowed to see his son due to interfere of the elders, the matter was settled.

Subsequently, settled and declared by the parents of the aggrieved person with written document, dt.23-4-1998, both parties and both side elders honoured settlement document and the parents are leading their personal life without any relation ship since 1998, the aggrieved person voluntarily refused to lead marital life with the respondent and voluntarily deserted the respondent.

(ii) It is further submitted that since the settlement of divorce, dt.23-4-1998, there is no relation ship between the parties, there is no conjugal life, as such, the settlement took place at the presence of her parents and deserted the respondent. Subsequently after the desertion of the both parties, the aggrieved person filed MC.30/2007 after more than 9 yeas and the same was allowed and the 1st respondent paying maintenance amount regularly, after that the aggrieved person filed this false case against the respondent with false allegations.

(iii) It is further submitted that the aggrieved person filed a criminal case in the Rentachintala Police station vide Cr.No.82/2017, the

6

aggrieved person deserted the 1st respondent for long and long years back i.e. more than 20 years, hence this case is not maintainable according to law.

(iv) It is further submittedthat the respondent is physically handicapped person, the aggrieved person came to know that she willfully filed false case against the respondents, the aggrieved person voluntarily deserted the 1st respondent without any reasonable cause.

As such, the aggrieved person intentionally harassed the respondents 1 to 3 and the 1st respondent already provides maintenance to the petitioners till today, the 2nd petitioner already obtained majority, therefore, he is not entitled to require maintenance from the respondents.

(v)It is further submittedthat the aggrieved person has got sufficient means, but intentionally filed this case only to harass the respondents. The aggrieved person never harassed any point of time and domestic violence by the respondents. Therefore, the aggrieved person is not entitled to seek reliefs which were recommended by the protection officer in her report. With theses submissions, the respondent

No.1 prayed to dismiss the petition.

3. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not file their counter nor they filed adoption memo for adopting the counter of R.1. Hence, the respondents 2 and 3 are remained exparte. Eventhough, R1 filed counter, he did not represent the case on behalf of himself. Hence, the respondent No.1 also set exparte.

4.During the course of enquiry, the aggrieved person herself got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

7

5.Heard the counsel for petitioner. There is no representation from the side of respondents, and they were set exparte, as such the arguments of respondents is considered as heard.

6.The point for consideration is:

1. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for Protection

Order as prayed for?

2. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for seeking

Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent or shelter in shared household or alternate accommodation U/S.19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as prayed for ?

3. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- p.m. as prayed for?

4. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for grant of

Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation as prayed for?

7.POINT NO.1:

Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for

Protection Order as prayed for?

As per the own report of the aggrieved person, she herself left the matrimonial home due to harassment of the respondents. As per the counter of respondent No.1, as there is no relation ship between the aggrieved person and Respondent No.1, since 1998. The aggrieved person voluntarily refused to lead marital life with the respondent and voluntarily deserted the respondent No.1. The aggrieved person also filed a criminal case against the respondents in the Rentachintala Police station vide Cr.No.82/2017 after desertion of respondent No.1 for long and long years back for more than 20 years. The simple report of aggrieved person is that as the respondents caused harassment, the

8

aggrieved person left the matrimonial home. Thus, there are no sufficient instances to believe that the aggrieved person underwent physical harassment at the hands of respondents. The simple saying of causing harassment by the respondents to the petitioner alone is not sufficient it shall be substantiated with sufficient ocular evidence. More over, as per the report of aggrieved person the aggrieved person herself left the matrimonial home without the consent of respondent No.1.

Thus, this court does not see any material that the aggrieved person is having threat of life or limbs at the hands of respondents. Therefore, it is not required to give any kind of protection order in favour of aggrieved person. Hence, this point is answered against the aggrieved person.

8.Point No.2:- Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for

seeking Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent or shelter in shared

household or alternate accommodation U/S.19 of Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act as prayed for ?

The aggrieved person has prayed to direct the Respondent No.1 to provide residence order or rent for alternative accommodation. She has been contending that since the aggrieved person is residing with her child in the house of her parents at Manchikallu village and as the respondents are living in the shared house hold at L.B.Nagar,

Sarrornagar, Rangareddy District. The 1st respondent is well off who earns Rs.70,000/- per annum, the 1st respondent did not choose to allow her and her child into his house. This shows that the respondents have committed domestic violence on PW.1 by refusing to accommodate her.

In such circumstances, PW1 is entitled for alternate accommodation directing R1 to provide alternative accommodation facility to her for

Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of this order. Accordingly, the point is answered.

9

9. POINT NO.3: Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- p.m. as prayed for?

It is already stated supra, on the instigation of R2, R1 got filed

HMOP.118/2008 on the file of Hon’ble Family court at R.R.District against

her for divorce, but the same was dismissed on merits on 24-01-2012.

The aggrieved person also filed HMOP on 27-1-2011 against R1 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was decreed in her favour on 27-1-2011, but R1 did not allow her for marital life. As she herself and her son are having no financial support and starving for food etc., in her parents house. Thus she filed MC.30/2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Gurazala and the same was allowed,but the respondent

No.1 did not pay single pie till today. No sufficient material is elicited that the respondent paid the maintenance to the aggrieved person.

The aggrieved person in her chief evidence stated that the respondent

No.1 is well off and he earns Rs.70,000/- p.a. towards salary and is having sufficient means, he himself neglected her for marital life as well as for providing maintenance. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 is having sufficient means in-order to provide maintenance to the aggrieved person and the child of the aggrieved person. The respondent No.1 is also having liability to maintain the aggrieved person and the child of the aggrieved person. No sufficient material is elicited that the aggrieved person herself voluntarily discarded the respondent No.1 and went to her parents house along with her child.

10. On the other hand, the aggrieved person failed to substantiate with the material to hold that the respondents 1 and 2 are having

10

movable and immovable properties and thereby they are getting good income. The aggrieved person sought Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance of her and her son. As per the material, there is no income source to the aggrieved person to maintain herself along with her son.

Thus, the respondent No.1 being husband is liable to provide maintenance to the aggrieved person. As the aggrieved person is leading miserable life along with her child and inview of the present cost of living, this Court is of the opinion that it is relevant to grant

Rs.10,000/- per month to the aggrieved person towards monthly maintenance and which is also justifiable. Thus, the respondent No.1 is under the obligation to pay Rs.10,000/- cash to the aggrieved person from the date of this order. Hence, the point is answered infavour of the aggrieved person and against the respondents.

11.POINT NO.4: Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for grant of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation as prayed for?

The aggrieved person sought Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that though the aggrieved person is residing along with her son in her parents house is discharging his bounded duties by providing shelter, care and protection to his son and his wife. Thus, there is no alternative way except to satisfy the aggrieved person with sufficient compensation.

Since the respondent No.1 is drawing net salary of Rs.70,000/- p.a. It is relevant to grant Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation to the aggrieved person.Hence, the respondent No.1 is under obligation to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the aggrieved person towards compensation which shall be paid within two months from the date of this order.

Thus, the point is answered in favour of the aggrieved person.

11

12.In the result, the petition is partly allowed by granting the following reliefs:

1) That the Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner towards rent or alternate accommodation from the date of this order.

2) That the Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the aggrieved person towards her maintenance from the date of this order payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month commencing from April, 2020; and

3) That the Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation to the aggrieved person for mental harassment and emotional distress caused to the aggrieved person by the respondents within Two months from the date of this order.

The petition for the rest of reliefs as prayed in the petition is hereby dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of March,

2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA,

FAC.ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Rachuri Hymavathi. -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: True copy of Decree in HMOP.No.46/2008 on the file Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Gurazala filed by the aggrieved person.

12

Ex.P2: Dismissed Order copy of O.P.No.118/2008 on the file of Family Court, Rangareddy District, which relates to Respondent.

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA,

FAC.ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA

PRESENT: Smt.N.Radhika,

Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla, FAC.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2020

C.C.No. 205 /2016

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. (Cr.No.226/2015) . . . Complainant

And

1. Kalukurthi Rama Kotaiah, s/o.Venkata Swamy, 79 years, Indira Colony, Dachepalli village and Mandal.

2. Kalukurthi Kanthamma, w/o.Rama Kotaiah, 75 years. Indira colony, Dachepalli village and Mandal.

3. Kalukurthi Sankar Rao, s/o.Rama Kotaiah, 30 years, Indira colony, Dachepalli village and Mandal.

4. Kalukurthi Venkata Srinivasu, s/o.Ramakotaiah, 40 years. Indira colony, Dachepalli village and Mandal. . . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 02-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Prasada Rao, Learned Advocate for accused, and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 in Cr.No.226/2015 for the offense U/S.447, 324, 323, 427 r/w.34 of IPC of Dachepalli P.S.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that :

The defacto-complainant/LW.1 by name Paiyedda Atchamma is the resident of Indira Colony of Dachepalli village and Mandal. Due to her old age, she remained in the house. The husband of LW.1-Atchamma was demised about 17 years back. She blessed with two daughters and one son. PW.1-Yekula Nirmala, who is the younger daughter of LW.1-Atchamma looking after her welfare. LW.1-Atchamma was having Ac.5.00 cents of site at Indira colony, there She constructed a house by taking house loan. The remaining site to an extent of Ac.2 ½ cents was presented to her younger daughter PW.1-Yekula Nirmala towards gift. But accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with LW.1-Atchamma stating that the said site was disposed off by her elder son Mohan Rao. Then, LW.1-Atchamma asked her elder son about the disposal of the site, but her elder son told that he never sold away the said site to A1. The A1 trespassed into the site and destroyed the super structure and plucked out the bamboo sticks. When LW.1-

Atchamma asked the accused No.1 about his behavior, on 5.12.2015 at 6.30 a.m., the A1 beat LW.1 with sticks and caused bleeding injury on her head and on her left elbow, accused Nos.2 and 4 fisted LW.1 on her back and caused contusion. As a sequel, LW.1-Atchamma sustained contusion on her back, they all beat LW.1-Atchamma with malafied intention to occupy her site. In the mean while, Pw3-Kalukurthi Vijayamma, PW.4-Uppu

Saidamma and PW.5-Vanka Yedukondalu gathered there, on seeing them the accused fled away. Later, PW1-Yekula Nirmala and PW.2-Yekula Jogi shifted LW.1-Atchamma to the Government Hospital, Gurazala and admitted her in the hospital for treatment.

On receipt of Hospital intimation, PW.8-M.Mallikharjuna Rao, Head constable, Gurazala P.S. visited the Government hospital, Gurazala on 5.12.2015 and recorded the statement of LW.1-Atchamma and transferred the same to the S.H.O. Dachepalli P.S. on point of jurisdiction.

PW.7-D.Sambasiva Rao, ASI of Dachepalli P.S. who received the statement of LW.1-Atchamma, registered a case in Cr.No.226/2015,

U/S.447, 324, 323, 427 r/w.34 of IPC on 6.12.2015 at 4.00 p.m., submitted

FIR to all officers concerned and took up investigation. During investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined LW.1-Atchamma and Pws. 1 to 5 and recorded their statements U/S.161 Cr.P.C. and also made prima-facie against A1 to A4 U/S.447, 324, 323, 427 r/w.34 IPC and also served notice

U/s.41-A Cr.P.C. against A1 to A4 on 8.12.2015.

PW.6-Dr.Y.Lakshmi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Gurazala, who treated the LW.1-Atchamma, issued wound certificate and opined in her report that the injuries received by Lw.1 are “Simple in nature”.

LW.10-P.Kiran, Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. verified the investigation done by PW.7 and after completion of investigation, LW.11-

K.Anand, Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. filed charge sheet against

A1 to A4.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken on file against the accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.447, 427, 324, 323 r/w.34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused 1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of the Cr.P.C.,

5.Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. A

Charge for the offences U/s.447, 324, 323 and 427 r/w.34 of IPC have been framed read over and explained to them in Telugu. For which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The evidence of LW.1-Paiyedda Atchamma, was closed by this court as she died. The evidence of LW.10-P.Kiran and

LW.11-K.Anand was given-up by the learned A.P.P.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which they denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/sec.447, 324, 323, 427 r/w.34 of IPC with which, they are charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8. P.W.1 is the younger daughter and PW.2 is the son-in-law of LW.1-P.Atchamma, Pw.3 is the elder daughter of LW.1-Atchamma, PWs.4 and 5 are the neighbours and eye witnesses to the incident, PW.6 is the medical officer, who treated LW.1-

Atchamma and issued wound Ex.P5 wound certificate, Pws.7 and 8 are the investigating officers in this case.

11.To prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 8. PW1-Yekula

Nirmala deposed in her evidence that her marriage was performed about 20 years back. At the time of marriage, her father gave 2 ½ cents of house site to her, out of Ac.0.05 cents as a gift through stamp paper. It is assigned land allotted to her father by the Government. After demise of her father, her mother registered the said land in her name as a gift.

During the year 2015, in the month of Christmas she laid foundation with an intention to construct a house in the said land. Before the 20 days of

Christmas Eve at about 6.00 to 8.00 A.M, she went to get milk, she noticed a group of persons gathered in front of her house. Immediately, she rushed there and noticed A1 was holding a stick, A2 to A4 also present at the scene, A1 was beating her mother LW.1-Atchamma with a stick on her head and she sustained bleeding injuries on her head, A2 to

A4 were also beating LW.1-Atchamma with hands and legs. Due to that, her mother sustained abrasion and swelling injuries on back side of her body. The neighbours are also gathered there. LW.5-Saidamma and LW.6-

Yedukondalu witnessed the incident. She called her husband and got shifted her mother to CHC, Gurazala for treatment. LW.1-Atchamma lodged a complaint. Police examined her and recorded her statement. She contains the documents with regard to her mother gifted the said property in her name. PW.1 volunteers that since the demise of her father, she has been residing with her mother LW.1-Atchamma till her death. PW.1 further deposed that due to fear of A1 to A4, presently she is staying at

Rentachntala.

12.PW.2-Yekula Jogi, who is the son-in-law of LW.1-Atchamma deposed in his evidence that at the time of marriage of PW.1, her father gifted 2 ½ cents of house site to her. In the year 2015 while constructing the wall in the said site, A1 to A4 obstructed them and fallen down the wall, when his mother-in-law intervened, A1 to A4 beat her and she sustained bleeding injury on her head and immediately, his wife/PW.1 shifted her mother/LW.1 to C.H.C, Gurazala, for treatment. A1 to A4 claiming the said site and raised quarrel with his mother-in-law.

13.PW.3-K.Vijayamma, who is the elder daughter of LW.1-Atchamma deposed in her evidence that about three years back, at about 7.00 a.m., she came to know about the galata made by all the accused at the house of her mother Atchamma, immediately, she went to the house of her mother, there all the accused were beating her mother and she received bleeding injuries to her head and left elbow. PW.3 further deposed that her father gave 2 ½ cents of site to PW.1 under Pasupukumkuma and later, her mother executed a registered document vide Gift Deed in her name. But the accused falsely claimed the said site and quarreled with her mother and beat her. Pws.1 and 2 shifted her mother to Government hospital, Gurazala for treatment.

14.PW.6-Dr.Y.Lakshmi, CAS, CCH, Gurazala, deposed that on 5.12.2015 she examined P.Atchamma/LW.1 and found the following injuries. 1) A swelling about 3 Cms. X 2 Cms. Present on the occipital area of scalp, 2)

An abrasion of 3 Cms. X 5 Cms., present on the dorsal surface of left elbow joint Red in colour and 3) Complaining of back ache. Accordingly, she issued wound certificate and opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt object. The age of the wounds are 0-12 hours prior to her examination.

15.PW.7-D.Sambasiva Rao, Retired Sub Inspector of police, deposed that on 6.12.2015 at about 4.00 p.m., he received Hospital intimation along with Ex.P7 statement of LW.1-P.Atchamma, basing on it, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.226/2015, u/s.447, 324, 323, 427 r/w.34 of IPC and issued Ex.P6 FIR to all officers concerned and took up investigation. During investigation, he proceeded to the vacant site at

Indira colony, Dachepalli and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P8. There he secured PWs.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. On 8.12.2015 he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to the accused 1 to 4 and after receiving wound certificate on 9.4.2015 he handed over the case file to Lw.10-

P.Kiran, Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. and after that the case file handed over to K.Anand, Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S. and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

16.PW.8-M.Mallikharjuna Rao, Head constable,deposed that on 5.12.2015 he received hospital intimation from Government hospital,

Gurazala, on that, he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of

LW.1.P.Atchamma. Thereafter, he transmitted the same to SHO,

Dachepalli P.S. on point of jurisdiction.

17.It is the case of the prosecution that PW.1 is the eye witness in this case, who is the younger daughter of the victim/LW.1-P.Atchamma, she emphasized that when she was returning to her house during Christmas, she noticed A1 to A4 in front of her house, who were beating her mother, she found that A1 was holding a stick, who beat on the head of LW.1-

Atchamma and caused bleeding injuries on her head, while A2 to A4 were beating LW.1-Atchamma with hands and legs, on that she called PW.2 over phone and both of them shifted the LW.1 Atchamma to C.H.C. Gurazala for treatment. Although, the testimony of PW.2 was all the nature of hearsay evidence, PW.2 as going to the scene of offence on receiving information from PW.1 and shifting the victim to the hospital, which is found to be chain of circumstances by creating galata. PW.3 also corroborated with the testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2, she found that by that time, she went to the scene of offence, she saw all the accused at the house of victim and found that they were beating LW.1 due to which, LW.1 sustained bleeding injuries on her head and on her left elbow.

18.PWs. 4 and 5 turned hostile, but however it was elicited during the cross examination by learned A.P.P. that PW.4 and PW.5 have knowledged that there were dispute between the accused and LW.1 due to which, they quarrelled on the date of offence. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the wounds of LW.1 coupled with Ex.P5 wound certificate and the testimony of PW.6 corroborates that LW.1 received injuries as narrated in the prosecution story. The proximity of date and time of offence and the treatment of LW.1 by the doctor, PW.6 further corroborates the prosecution version. In this case, PW.8 received the hospital intimation from PW.7 and recorded the statement of LW.1, PW.7 registered the case as FIR. In this case, the admitted facts are that there were civil dispute between the family of LW.1 and the family of accused in respect of the scene of offence house and civil dispute is admitted during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. Except eliciting about the disputes that fact was existed between LW.1 and accused in respect of scene of offence, no matter was elicited during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses on behalf of accused which may raise reasonable doubt against the case of prosecution. The eye witness PW.1 had empathetically affirmed during the cross examination that A1 to A4 beat

LW.1, the motive of A1 to A4 in quarrelling and beating LW.1 had established that there were civil dispute arose between them in respect of the scene of offence site by the fact that LW.1 was get a wall constructed in the disputed site. Nothing was elicited infavour of the accused against the case of prosecution which could lead this court to disbelieve the version of prosecution clearly; the accused is not successful in creating the reasonable doubt against the case of prosecution. However, it is an admitted fact in this case that there were civil dispute pending in respect of the disputed house site and no investigation was carried out to determination atleast prima-facie as to whom the scene of offence site belongs and as to who was in possession of the house or site at the time of offence.

19.The victim/LW.1 was not examined as witness before this court as she died before trial. However, PW.8 who had recorded the statement of deceased/LW.1 was marked as Ex.P10 affirmed that he received hospital intimation on 5.12.2015 from Government hospital, Gurazala and he recorded the statement of LW.1 in the hospital. Thereafter, during investigation, the statement of LW.1 was recorded by PW.8 u/s.161 Cr.P.C. coupled with her statement Ex.P10 corroborated with the case of prosecution. It is for the investigating officer to decide whether the statement of witness should be reduced to writing or not. In this case, the statement of LW.1/victim was reduced to writing u/s.161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer/PW.7. In this context, the observation made by J.B.Roy Vs. State of A.P. AIR 1968 A.P. 236 is relied upon.

20.In such a case, this court is inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of criminal trespass against the accused. In addition, there is no scintilla of material placed on record by way of oral testimonies or by way of documents to show that an offence of mischief punishable u/s.427 IPC was committed by the accused also in this case no weapons were extracted as

Material objects, which were allegedly used by the accused to contain the offence. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish the case u/s.324 IPC. But the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s.323 r/w.34 of IPC.This point is answered accordingly.

21. In the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/S.323 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted U/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/S.447, 324 and 427 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted

U/S.248(1) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 16 th day of March, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA

FAC.ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:

On hearing the accused 1 to 4, on the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them, A1 submitted that he has got parents and he is sole bread winner of his family and pleaded mercy. A2 submitted that he has got parents and he is the sole bread winner of his family and pleaded mercy, A3 submitted that he has got parents and he is sole bread winner of his family and A4 submitted that he has got parents and he is the sole bread winner of his family and pleaded mercy and pleaded mercy, as such, this court is inclined to take lenient view in favour of the accused.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the accused 1 to 4, this court feels that the accused 1 to 4 are sentenced topay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, (Total fine amount of Rs.4,000), in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months each for the offence U/S.323 r/w.34 IPC. There is no remand period to be set off under

Section 428 Cr.P.C.

The accused 1 to 4 submitted that they have got sufficient means to appeal their case and accused are informed to Right of Appeal. Office is directed to furnish the copy of Judgments to the accused forthwith.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 16 th day of March, 2020.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA,

FAC.ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Yekula Nirmala. -None-

P.W.2: Yekula Jogi.

P.W.3: Kalukurthi Vijayamma.

P.W.4: Uppu Saidamma.

P.W.5: V.Yedukondalu.

P.W.6: Dr. Y.Lakshmi, CAS, CHC, Gurazala.

P.W.7: D.Sambasiva Rao, ASI, Dachepalli P.S.

P.W.8: M.Mallikharjuna Rao, H.C. Dachepalli P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Certified copy of Registered Gift Deed, Nil. dt.31-03-2015.

Ex.P.2: Original Endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Dachepalli, Dt.31-03-2015.

Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.5.

Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of LW.1-P.Atchamma.

Ex.P.6: F.I.R.

Ex.P.7: Statement of LW.1-P.Atchamma.

Ex.P.8: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.9: Hospital Intimation.

Ex.P10: Statement of LW.1/deceased Atchamma.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA,

FAC.ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PIDUGURALLA

Present: Smt. N.Radhika,

Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of July, 2019

C.C.No.182/2016

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S …. Complainant.

And:

Sayyed Saleema, W/o.Abdul Rajak, 50 years,

R/o.Kondamodu village, Rajupalem Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming on 19-07-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri V.

Papa Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused is charged for the offence punishable U/Sec.323, 506, 355

IPC in Cr.No.142/2016 of Piduguralla P.S.

02.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that:

In the year 2014 the son of the accused by name Sayyed Kareem was died and it is subject matter of Cr.No.42/2016, U/s.302, 201 r/w 34 IPC and during the course of investigation, the Piduguralla police arrested the L.W.1-

Vemula Kasi Viswanadha Babu as A1 and sent him for judicial remand and after getting bail, the L.W.1 was released on condition bail on 11.05.2016.

According to the conditional bail order on 18.05.2016 L.W.1 came to 2

Piduguralla Police station stood infront of the main gate, at about 5.00 PM in order to put his attestation in the police station, in the meanwhile, the accused present there and noticed L.W.1 and abused him in filthy language by threatened with dire consequences by warned that she will kill him, beat with her foot wear on the back side of L.W.1’s head. The said incident was witnessed by L.W.2 to 4. Immediately L.W.1 gave report to police.

Basing on it, L.W.6-K.Chennakeswarlu,SI of police, Piduguralla P.S registered the same as a case in Cr.No.142/2016, U/s.323, 506, 355 IPC.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 10.06.2016 he served sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released her on station bail. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

03. This case was taken on cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.323, 506, 355 IPC against the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to her as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, for which the accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence the trial.

06.To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined Five witnesses as PWs.1 to P.W.5 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P.4 documents and behalf of prosecution and got exhibited Ex.D.1 on behalf of defence.

3

07.After closure of prosecution evidence accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence appearing against her and the plea of accused is one of total denial. When he call upon to enter upon defence evidence, he did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents are marked on behalf of defence.

08.Heard the arguments on both sides.

09. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section U/Sec.U/s.323, 506, 355 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 5:

a) P.W 1: Shaik Gouse Peera, deposed that on 18.5.2016 himself, Mary,

Venkateswarlu came to police station in connection with galata between

Mary and his co-sister and while standing in front of police station LW1-

Viswanadha Babu went inside the police station, after crossing the police station gate the accused beat L.W.1 with chappal on his head in the compound of the police station. He stated that he do not know the reason for accused beating L.W.1 with chappal.

b) P.W 2: T.Venkateswarlu deposed that he know L.W.1 who is the

Sarpanch of their village. He know P.W.1 and L.W.4. A muslim boy died, who is the resident of Kondamodu, he know the deceased boy and his parents, but he do not know their names. After his death L.W.1 and the accused filed cases against each other, but he do not know why these cases are filed against each other. He do not know anything about this case.

4

c) P.W 3: Orsu.Mery deposed that on 18-5-2016 around 5 pm she went to attend the panchayat along with P.Ws 1 and 2 to Piduguralla Police station.

L.W.1 came to the Police station, the accused quarreled with L.W.1 and beat him with a chappal on his shoulder and abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequence. Previously she filed a case against

L.W.1 alleging that he murder her son.

d)PW3 stated that she know about the death of the accused’s son by name kareem. She heard that L.W.1 killed kareem and that a case was filed against the L.W.1. It was admitted by her that the wife of L.W.1 is a sarpanch of our village. It was admitted by her that the public works were supervise by L.W.1. It was admitted by her that L.w.1 is financially and politically influenced person. It was admitted by her that the son of accused used to works as a servant of L.W.1. PW3 is native of Darsi and she went to the Police station at 5 pm on the date of offence, It was admitted by her that the police station area is usually crowded in the evening. It was admitted by her that several accused persons come to the police station. There is no police constable on sentry duty at the station when she went to the Police station.

By the time she went to the police station, L.W.1’s car was stationed there. It was admitted by her that his followers always accompanied him. On the date of offence another 6 members came with L.W.1 to attend before police station, who are also accused in Cr.No.42/2016. The names of the persons are L.W.1, Nagaraju, Siva, Srinu, she do not know the names of other two persons. PW3 and P.Ws.1 and 2 accompanied her and another 5 members were present in the police station at the time of offence. PW3 further stated that along with the accused, her brother, her uncle and daughter-in-law were present. She deposed that she stated before the police that along with the accused her relatives were also present at that time and they tried to pacify the matter at that time. She stated that there are about 6 police personnel 5 in the police station at that time, but she cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence. The police station is on the east of the scene of offence.

She stated before the police that the accused beat L.W.1 on his shoulder.

She denied the suggestion that she stated before the police that the accused beat L.W.1 on his head as in 161 Cr.PC statement as in Ex.D.1. It was admitted by her that L.W.1 is of good height and he is stronger than the accused. She denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence and that she is deposing falsehood in support of L.W.1. She denied the suggestion that she never went to the police station on the date of offence and that the accused did not come to the police station on the said day and that she is deposing false at the instance of L.”W.1 with a view to harass the accused as a counter blast to the case filed by her against L.W.1 u/s 302 IPC.

e) P.W 4: P.Venkateswarlu deposed that on 19.5.2016 he was on duty on station watch between 5 to 5.30 P.M., He heard cries in front of the gate of

Police Station. He went there and found that a crowd gathered infront of the gate and L.W.1 was shouting that someone was killing. The accused and 10 other members were present at the spot. They took L.W.1 inside the police station. L.W.1 was accused on the allegation that he caused the murder of son of accused and he was facing proceedings U/sec.302 of IPC. L.W.1 came to police station to affix signature in view of bail conditions. After affixing his signatures in the police station and he went out and raising cries.

On the date of incident beside himself there are two other police staff were present in the police station. He stated before the police the contents of his chief examination that L.W.1 raised cries and that he took him inside the police station. He denied the suggestion that he stated before the police that

L.W.1 left himself from the station surroundings and that he took him inside 6 the police station. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of police and that alleged offence is never took.

f) P.W 5: K.Chennakesavulu deposed that On 18.5.2016 at 5.30 P.M.,

L.W.1 who was involved in a case in Cr.No.42/2016 U/sec.302, 201 r/w 34 of

IPC came to Police station and in pursuance to the conditions of his bail order, dt.11.5.2016 to appear before him. After attending before the police station he left the station. Subsequently at 5.30 P.M,, P.W.1 gave a report against the accused stating that when he came to the police station, on the said date and he stood in front of main gate about 5.30 P.M., to appear

before me the accused who was present there abuse him in filthy language

stating that dire consequence and beat him by throwing her foot wear, which hit him on the back of his head. Ex.P2 is Report. As it is not a cognizable offence, he took permission from the court and he registered a case in

Cr.No.142/2016 for the offence U/sec.323, 506, 355 of IPC and submitted the original FIR, and other relevant papers to the court. Ex.P3/ FIR. He examined L.Ws.1 to 5, inspected the offence and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P4 On 10.6.2016 the accused was arrested and served

U/sec.41(A) of Cr.P.C notice and she was released on obtaining proper sureties. After completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

He denied the suggestion that the police station premises are usually busy.

It was admitted by him that there were CC cameras are installed within the premises. PW5 and P.W.4 were said to be present at the station at the time of offence. It was admitted by him that P.W.4 did not state before him that he had eye witnessed the offence. It was admitted by him that P.W.4 did not state before him that he brought L.W.1 inside the police station and that

L.W.1 reported him against the accused. He denied the suggestion that P.W.2 7 did not state before him as in portion of Ex.P1. He denied the suggestion that

P.W.3 did not state before me as in Ex.D1. He cannot say who are the accused in Cr.No.42/2016 along with L.W1. He cannot say any other accused apart from L.W.1 in Cr.No.42/2016 who came to the police station on the date of offence to comply the conditions of bail order. He denied the suggestion to suggest that L.W.1 is politically influenced and as a case u/sec.302 of IPC is pending against him he filed a false case against the accused with a view to pressurize for and stands hostile in the said case.

11.Coming to the appreciation of evidence Section at first, let me have a glance on ingredential frame work of alleged charge u/Sec.323, 506, 355 IPC which reads as follows:

Section 323 IPC . Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. —

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,

voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may extend to one year,

or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with

both.

Section 506 IPC. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc .—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Sec.355 IPC. Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour

person, otherwise than on grave provocation.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

12.Admittedly, the son of the accused used to work as a farm servant under L.W.1 who was the Sarpanch and L.W.1 was alleged to have committed culpable homicide of the son of accused. L.W1 is admittedly an accused

U/s.302 IPC facing allegations of killing the son of accused, which goes to 8 suggest an enmity between the accused and L.W.1. It is an admitted fact that L.W.1 is always accompanied by his followers and on the alleged date of offence also he was accompanied by his men to the police station, to comply the bail conditions. P.W.1 stated that the accused beat L.W.1 with a chappal on his head after crossing the police station gate within the premises of police station, while P.W.3 deposed that the accused beat him on his shoulder, which is not, P.W.4 stated that L.W.1 raised cries in front of the police station gate saying that someone was killing him and went outside the gate and found the accused, L.W.1 and some others were present, he took

L.W.1 inside the station. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is not consistent with each other in respect of the offence. It is doubtful that L.W.1 raised cries that a helpless and distressed woman who lost her son was killing him, while he was accompanied with his followers at the alleged scene of offence. The exact scene of offence, the presence of the accused at the alleged scene of offence, the alleged offence appears inconsistent from the material placed in the record by the prosecution. On the other hand, the prosecution did not even file the CC TV footage to establish the presence of the accused or L.W.1 before the police station on the alleged date of offence.

13.The defacto complainant/L.W.1 did not appear before the court to adduce his evidence and to afford an opportunity for the accused to test his veracity by cross examining him, as such this court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against him that had he have entered into the witness box and deposed evidence, the real facts of the case should have come into light.

14.In these circumstances, a reasonable doubt is engendered against the case of prosecution and in favour of the accused and it appears that the plea of the accused that she was falsely implicated to recriminate and force her to remain hostile in the case filed by her against L.W.1 U/s.302 IPC is highly 9 probable. Hence this court does not falter in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as such the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.323, 506, 355 of IPC, as such she is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be kept in force until the expiry of appeal time. No property as to order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 23 rd day of July, 2019.

Sd/-N.Radhika

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PIDUGURALLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: None P.W.1Shaik Gouse Peera P.W.2Thiruveedula Venkateswarlu P.W.3Orsu Mery P.W.4P.Venkateswarlu, PC. P.W.5K.Chennakeswarlu, SI of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.2Report Ex.P3FIR Ex.P4Rough sketch

For Defence: Ex.D.1: Some relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Material Objects Nil.

Sd/-N.Radhika

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PIDUGURALLA

10

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.182/2016 DATE OF :- Offence: 18.05.2016 Complaint: 19.05.2016 Apprehension of accused: 10.06.2016 Released on bail: 10.06.2016 Commencement of trial: 23.08.2016 Close of trial: 19.07.2019 Sentence or order: 23.07.2019

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses Name of the Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of police, Piduguralla P.S. (Cr.No.142/2016) Name of the accused

Sayyed Saleema, W/o.Abdul Rajak, 50 years,

R/o.Kondamodu village, Rajupalem Mandal.

Offence : U/sec.323, 506, 355 of IPC

Finding : Found not guilty U/sec.323, 506, 355 of IPC

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.323, 506, 355 of IPC, as such she is acquitted u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be kept in force until the expiry of appeal time. No property as to order.

Sd/-N.Radhika

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PIDUGURALLA

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.